5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Simferopol.
6.  On 16 July 2001 the applicant lodged with the Kyivsky District Court of Simferopol (“the Kyivsky Court”) three separate claims against the K. company, seeking compensation for the company’s alleged failure to comply with its contractual obligations and claiming the title to two garage-boxes erected by the latter pursuant to several contracts with the applicant.
7.  Subsequently, the applicant amended his claims on several occasions.
8.  The applicant’s claims concerning the title to two garage-boxes were joined, while the compensation claim was examined separately.
9.  On 11 July 2002 the Kyivsky Court allowed the applicant’s compensation claim in full. The respondent appealed.
10.  On 6 November 2002 the Crimea Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
11.  On 9 November 2006 the Kyivsky Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated and time-barred. The applicant appealed on 5 December 2006.
12.  On 21 February 2007 the Crimea Appeal Court upheld the judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation on 10 April 2007.
13.  On 6 December 2007 the Supreme Court decided to reject the applicant’s appeal in cassation.  On 27 December 2007 a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant.
14.  In the course of the proceedings concerning the title to two garage-boxes the respondent company introduced a counter-claim, alleging that the applicant’s claims had been already met, as his wife, acting on the applicant’s behalf under a power of attorney, had obtained compensation for the property in question pursuant to two separate contracts dated 18 February 2002.
15.  On 15 July 2003 the Kyivsky Court ruled against the applicant, allowing the respondent’s counter-claim, finding that the respondent had performed its obligations under the contracts by paying the requisite compensation to the applicant’s wife.
16.  On 29 July 2003 the applicant appealed.
17.  On 24 November 2003 the appeal was returned to the applicant for procedural shortcomings, which he was instructed to rectify by 26 December 2003.
18.  On 13 April 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 17 July 2003. The applicant appealed in cassation.
19.  On 22 June 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.
20.  On 12 June 2008 the applicant requested the Kyivsky Court to inform him of the outcome of his appeal in cassation.
21.  On 17 July 2008 the applicant received a copy of the decision of 22 June 2007.
22.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the courts had to adjourn the hearings sixteen times in the first set and nineteen times in the second set of proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear and requests for adjournments. In particular, some of the hearings were adjourned or not held due to the absence of the applicant’s representative.
23.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant lodged with the courts two separate claims against his wife and the company, challenging the validity of the contracts of 18 February 2002 (see paragraph 14 above).
24.  By decisions of 30 June and 8 November 2004, the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Court and the Crimea Court of Appeal respectively invalidated the contracts of 18 February 2002 and ordered the applicant’s wife to pay back to the company the amounts she had received under the contracts.
25.  According to the applicant, he informed the courts dealing with his claims for the title to two garage-boxes about the latter decisions.